A -DM

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 76 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Battlestar Galactica Miniseries #70033
    A -DM
    Participant

    I saw the mini-series over the last few nights and I was simply gobsmacked, it was absolutely amazing and one of the finest pieces of Sci-Fi I have ever seen.
    It had me gripped, the story was scary and very psychological, the horror I felt for the little girl left behind on that botanical ship, the guilt of Gaius Baltar for what he had done was played out brilliantly,
    the whole series was so far removed from the original it was untrue, and it worked because of it, it was like Tim Burton’s Batman against the 60’s version.
    I don’t think a sci-fi programme has hit me as hard as the first Lexx eps, I’m dead chuffed they are continuing the series and this is what I look forward to above all else.
    No offence to the original BSG, but this take on the story is the way it should’ve been, but then that was a different era and it was aimed at much younger viewers back then.
    Another amazing point is that the effects were outstanding, with the zoom in’s and camera angles, surprisingly all this was done on Nvidia graphics cards (Quadro) and for me it was right up there with anything ILM could’ve done.
    I particualrly liked the way the way the colonnials had to revert back to the old tech, very well played out.
    Final verdict: Simply Stunning

    in reply to: LotR: Return of the King – Cult or Corny? #69869
    A -DM
    Participant

    I’ve just started reading the book for the first time in about 15 years, and I forgot how good a read it is, it’s worth noting that Tolkien acknowledged faults and loopholes in the book, some down to his original version and some down to revisions done by other’s.
    For the best part LOTR films have been heavily revised, Jackson has taken a lot of the best text and shortened it, i.e the part where Gandalf talks of Bilbo staying his hand and taking pity on Gollum/Smeagol is actually talked of in Bag End and not the mines of Moria, as well as a few other lines. The films also miss out on the fact that Gandalf leaves Frodo for 17 years before his return, although he pops back to the shire once in a while to chack on Frodo, at that time Frodo is the same age as Bilbo when he first found the ring.
    Jackson has quite cleverly picked out a story that is the basic story of LOTR and re-imagined it, and in my opinion is as good as the book.
    A lot of gripes such as Frodo and Sam being so close to lava are unavoidable as they are a major part of the story, it’s worthwhile remembering that Hobbits are unlike men, they are very resilient, this is why you see them with bare feet, if you or I travelled such a long distance over mountains and other hazards, our feet would require amputation!!
    I don’t think many appreciate just how big a book LOTR is, if you stuck to the original story faithfully, the running time would perhaps be four times longer for each film, I think Jackson has compacted the story extremely well, and even though your ass goes completely numb for the last hour, it would’ve been a catastrophe to cut it short.
    I would loved to have seen Saruman’s last desperate act at the end of the film, in it he and Wormatongue enslave the Shire, the hobbits return and overthrow Saruman and then Wormatongue murders Saruman, if I remember rightly, but as there is such a long dialogue after the ring is thrown into the Cracks of Doom, it would’ve meant the film would’ve probably gone on for another hour.

    in reply to: Get a Grip… #69868
    A -DM
    Participant

    ADM, don’t get so excited about the law suit. It’s just as much a product of media hype as the outrage over the “costume malfunction” and the puffed up corporate hog-wallow that the Super Bowl has become.
    Come back in a couple of months and see who remembers the law suit, the breast, or even which teams were playing. 🙄

    We just have to subject ourselves to these little outbreaks of hysteria every now and then–it keeps the 24 hour news channels in business. 😈

    elmey

    Yep, I’m guilty of over reacting as well, I tend to forget that America is big, BIG place and situations like this are magnified given the size of the country, I guess that comes from living on a tiny isle called the UK!!!
    Ya know how it is, you get a bee in your bonnet and you have to find somewhere too let off steam, but it’s not trolling, anyhoo, apologies for the rant…it’s now passed. 😉

    in reply to: Get a Grip… #69866
    A -DM
    Participant

    [/quote]WOW

    The media went overboard?

    oh no, say it ain’t so! It never happens anywhere in the world!

    Rev up the nukes, get the APCs rolling, clearly America needs to be stopped!!!!

    Try and pay attention please if at all possible, I never said the media, did I?…no I did not. as for being a troll I don’t think so, I’ve already stated that normally I have plenty of time for Americans.
    And no, I don’t recall such ridiculous hysteria being caused in another country over a stunt like this, sure you get the parents kicking up a stink, but suing never follows.
    Can you please explain to me how this woman can claim serious injury for seeing a woman flashing a boob?, the silly thing is that knowing how many silly people back her reaction, is that she will probably win millions…does this sound normal and right to you?
    Even another American (Moby) is finding all the fuss over the top, considering all the violent crime that is shown and seen, but I suppose he must be a troll as well.
    And your reaction is pretty much the same such reaction to that of Janet’s boob flash, i.e over the top, over dramatic and ludicrous, thankfully not all Americans are like you, but they do seem to be few and far between.

    in reply to: Get a Grip… #69863
    A -DM
    Participant

    see below

    in reply to: Relationships in Sci Fi? #69012
    A -DM
    Participant

    what about the buffy/spike thing.

    or as my housemate and i call it: spuffy.

    spuffy was cool coz it took the vampire / slayer thing a a lot further than they could go with angel. spike never had the fact of losing his soul hanging over his head. in fact while they had a relationship (if you can call it that) he didnt even have a soul.

    It brought out a whole new side of spike. or rather, an old side that we hadnt seen for ages. at least not since dru left him. for ages there he was wandering around, he could have compeated with angel for the brooding vampire award he was so boring.

    but then the tensions started with him and buffy. i think the best thing that happend in the last ep. was how he recognised that she never loved him, and it was ok.
    i agree with whoever said it (im in the middle of writing an essay, im not gonna bother with quotes and stuff) that morality is different now. you don’t necessarily have to be in love with someone to sleep with them. sex can be its own tension.

    however, i dont really think its possible for many, (if any) shows to consumate a relationship and not balls it up. there’s no tension in it. by letting the characters be happy for any length of time people lose interest. I mean, Oz and Willow were perfectly happy – people were losing interest though.

    I find it amusing that so many want to see a relationship in a series blossom, but then get bored of it in no time, it’s a good thing if a series is coming to an end because there is nothing too worry about if it goes pear shaped, but trying to get a romance going with main characters is suicide if the series looks to run for several seasons.
    The smart thing with Whedon is that he always made sure the romances ended in disaster, so the slate could be wiped clean and a new love interest could pop up for Buffy, Xander and Willow and even very rarely for Giles, this show was never going to have a long term romance and that’s why it remained fresh for so long.

    ADM

    in reply to: Relationships in Sci Fi? #69011
    A -DM
    Participant

    Is the Doctor the Master’s mistress?

    …But Stargate is now only behind X-Files in the longest running series stakes…

    Hey, what about Dr. Who?

    Anyone ever think there might have been some curious attraction between The Master and The Doctor? No? I thought not.[/quote]

    I read this about SG-1 and I think they don’t include shows like Star Trek or Dr Who because of their different incarnations, whereas SG-1 and X-Files have used the same cast throughout or near as dammit.

    ADM

    in reply to: Come on lads, give Andromeda a chance #68991
    A -DM
    Participant

    I have too say that Sorbo is not the problem with Andromeda, I liked him in Herc, but as a captain he doesn’t come across as a strong leader, the tough guy image doesn’t work with him, it worked with herc because he was a hero for the people and needed to show a gentler side and it worked.
    But that is only one point in the this tedious show, truth be told I would imagine that a lot of the shows fans originated from Herc.
    The show just hasn’t improved, at times it’s shown it’s picking itself up and showing promise and then does something in another ep to throw itself back in the gutter.
    It’s one of those shows that it’s hard to put your finger as too why it’s not appealing, I think it’s a combination of many small things that most times go undetected but when they all come together in one ep then you’re left with the feeling of a poor show.
    I think the cons outweigh the pros in Andromeda’s case, some of the actor’s feel like rejects from bit part shows of the past, they’ve shown up here and there in minor roles and that’s all they’ve ever done. Look’s and character play a big part in this show’s downfall, Sorbo we’ve already discussed, Harper is the very depiction of annoying little man who is just not funny, Beka Valentine has the face of a trout giving birth, Trance Gemini (that is such a crap and corny name), she’s cute, but like Harper she get’s annoying and she now looks like a rastafarian version of Xev, Rev Bem looked like a big teddy with claws and had female genitila for a nose.
    The only two characters of note was Tyr and Rommie, Tyr because he had character and a dark side, the guy played the part well, and Rommie because I’m a big fan of Lexa Doig and she is beautiful beyond belief, shame she’s wasting her time with this.
    Don’t get me wrong I have watched every ep of Andromeda from day one, I watched through lack of anything else to do, and there has been good times, but the first two seasons were abysmal, it now stands on a precipice, and in my opinion it does not warrant further existence as while the latter seasons have improved, they haven’t improved enough.
    To me Andromeda smacks of a show that tries too hard, when it simply has no idea on how too make itself good or improve it’s ratings, the episodes are erratic and it’s difficult to know what goals this story now has. Just when it looks like Hunt is nearer his goal of creating a new commonwealth, the writers in their infinte wisdom decide let’s destroy the whole thing and start again, each season is Andromeda trying a new way to express itself and ultimately failing miserably every time.

    ADM

    in reply to: Relationships in Sci Fi? #68990
    A -DM
    Participant

    I think the best show for keeping a relationship going is Stargate, Jack and Sam, it will never happen but you can still feel the underlying tones of attraction between them both, but the excuse is that they are both military officers and would end up being facing court martial if naughtiness ensued. But how daft is that?, you can’t get more private than gating thousands of light years away from Earth, just pack Daniel and T’ealc off on recon and bobs your uncle!!!
    But Stargate is now only behind X-Files in the longest running series
    stakes and yet we still have the ‘will they, won’t they’ question popping up, so well done SG-1 writers for handling it so well.

    ADM

    in reply to: Jonas #68989
    A -DM
    Participant

    Yep I agree, Jonas’ exit wasn’t handled well, it was almost like he’d
    only appeared in one ep before his departure, it was cold and badly done, they made his exit feel like a being a temp at a job, no one gives a damn if you leave or not, and that’s how it ended up feeling with Jonas.
    But even though the storylines are still very good, the return of Daniel seems now to be very distant memory, within two eps he is back as if he never left. Personally I think the storyline of Daniel facing off against Anubis as uber gods should’ve been played out more, I’d liked to have seen Daniel doing some stuff with his new found powers.
    It’d be nice if Jonas came back for Stargate: Atlantis, but no mention of that happening, but ya never know.

    ADM

    in reply to: Just a little question. #66916
    A -DM
    Participant

    I was thinking how saddy’s logo could fit nicely into the Superman diamond logo, and then you could be the world’s first ‘Sad Superman’, I can just see it, you walk along in an important manner and then rip open your shirt too reveal the sad superman logo, I bet that would bring a new level of respect to Sadgeezers, probably get sued by Jerry Siegel (is he still alive?) though!!!

    Squishy

    P.S If a clothing chain arises from this, I wanna cut of the profits!!!

    in reply to: Harry Potters for nerds #66824
    A -DM
    Participant

    Most of us don’t read Harry Potter for a philosophical revelation either, or watch the Matrix for it. Thats the fine distinction between entertainment and reality. Pick up some Anselm if you want a revelation.

    I haven’t been to this board for over 4 weeks now, because I’ve been over at the matrix boards discussing the philosophy of it, and believe me there are plenty of revelations to explore.

    Squishy

    in reply to: Search for the Higgs Boson particle #66815
    A -DM
    Participant

    Yep the Lexx story seems to reflect this, obviously this is them expressing their fears, as the new Large Hadron Collider being built will have a higher energy output than that of it’s predecessor the LEP, all this to confirm the existence of a particle that is meant to give mass to other particles…Higgs, kinda frightening that they are recreating the big bang just to prove it exists, the LHC will go online in 4 years time, so make the most of it boys and girls!!!
    On the plus side they may learn about how to control matter/anti-matter reactions, and from it can come an engine for space travel.

    Squishy

    in reply to: Harry Potters for nerds #66814
    A -DM
    Participant

    I agree with you Dudelove, the whole thing is crap, ok it’s for kids and perhaps I can’t appreciate it at my age (32), but I watched it and cannot see any appeal to adults, plus I think it’s standing as a big movie is false, parents bringing their kids just makes it look like a huge blockbuster.
    I’m just thankful films like Reloaded and LOTR are around to put it into perspective (and blow it out of the water).
    Granted it’s a good thing for the kids because of reading, but the whole thing has been blown out of proportion, in the UK they were queing for hours to get hold of the new book…these people really need to get a life (say’s a sadgeezer!!!).
    But all the fuss that is made about it is OTT and it does my head in!!!, that and David Beckham’s transfer.

    Squishy

    in reply to: Check out an article about V in week of June 14 #66443
    A -DM
    Participant

    Jhevz, if you want people too see your poll, can I suggest placing it elsewhere, this forum is for science fact and a poll on V hardly falls into that category!!!
    ADM

    in reply to: *SPOILER* "Matrix Reloaded" #66307
    A -DM
    Participant

    It wasn’t really important to see the last flight of the osiris, as that just showed a very small portion of what was too come, i.e the osiris saw what the machines was up too, building a massive army of squidy’s and using massive drills that were placed directly above Zion to attack it, the osiris was then seen and the squidy’s attacked the Osiris, the osiris couldn’t use the EMP as they had to get a message to the post box to warn of the impending attack, so they sent someone in to deliver it, she made it, but the osiris was destroyed shortly after.
    I think the Matrix is a smaller program and that Neo, Zion and the agents are all the same…computer simulations, it is a pre-designed
    scenario designed to give mankind one thing…hope, but it’s a false hope, it’s meant to make the human race believe that they can be free, when in fact they never can be, and this program has been run countless times and that’s why Zion has been destroyed time and again, perhaps someone in the real ‘REAL’ world someone does start to behave differently and the big computer (that really controls the Matrix) runs the Matrix scenario to dispel any thoughts of what’s really going on, I think that’s what the keymaker really is, he knows that Neo and the rest don’t truly exist, although I think he either doesn’t know for sure or he can’t make himself stand out too much as he is the only one that is truly real, perhaps he feels that he can use both Neo’s and the Matrix’s programming to attack the main computer and really free the human race.
    Or it could be that if he is the architect, he is the one human allowed to live in the real world to maintain the Matrix programming, he finally decides he is sick of what is going on and finds a way to destroy the main computer that controls the Matrix, he may have created Neo (each tiime the program/person is different) under instruction from the main computer to run this scenario again, only this time he’s tweaked ‘The One’s’ programming to essentially make Neo a rogue virus that can destroy the main computer. However, he needs to enter the Matrix to guide the Neo program to execute it’s goal without actually telling Neo and the rest that they don’t really exist and they are not fighting for their lives, but his and maybe a few thousand others, maybe mankind is not made up of millions, but a few thousand in reality and he needs the Neo program he created to destroy it.
    So destroying Zion for a sixth time is how many times the architect has seen it happen in his life time, yet he may have had many predeccessors who have witnessed it countless times, all because it is part of the Matrix simulation and that’s how it always plays out.
    I think the wachowskis are doing a wizard of oz on a grander scale, and the whole story is a dream within a dream.
    I could be wrong, but the whole concept of the Matrix is designed to make you think and give you shock value, in the first film we were astounded to learn that Thomas Anderson lived in a dream world, now take that premise up a notch and we then are shocked to find out that Neo is also living in a dream world created to cloud his mind, the bubble inside a bubble, of course by this stage your head starts to hurt!!!, and in a way it’s dangerous as some guillable people in the audience will then start to question their own reality.
    And that Peter Chung bloke is a bit thick isn’t he!?!, he wrote ‘I didn’t understand why the people of Zion regarded Neo with such reverence, since we never see them witnessing him doing any of his superhuman feats in the Matrix.’, why should they?, no one today saw Jesus in action but they still believe in him, the people of Zion know Neo is the one and that’s all they need too know, what does Chung expect, they all pack into the Matrix just so they can see Neo in action, they would all be at risk from agents….Chung you’re a dummy!!!
    He also wrote ‘For that matter, I’m not sure what relevance the struggles in the Matrix have to the man-machine conflict in the real world. How exactly is Neo’s journey to “the source” of the Matrix supposed to protect Zion from the machines’ imminent invasion? ‘,…erm, this guy doesn’t pay much attention does he, Neo needs to be there to keep the Matrix busy while the rest have to get to the other humans to free their minds, as we saw in the first film it’s not a case of ‘Hi, just dropped by to let you know you’re living in a dream world’, each human has to be freed over time, they need to believe the truth before they can be freed, you can’t do that after a cup of tea and five minute chat with Morpheus, especially seeing as Thomas Andeson already knew of the Matrix and therefore was slightly easier too convince, no one else does and convincing them is a damn sight harder…so Chung, do your homework.
    ADM

    in reply to: #66306
    A -DM
    Participant

    You have too realise Saddy that this film is all about the FX, no matter how good a plot it has it is always going to be overshadowed by it’s innovative special effects, that’s why the first film was such a hit, things like ‘bullet time’ and the martial arts just blew people away and had never been seen before.
    For me the story is modern parable, mirroring the story of Jesus, but it’s so subtle and well done.
    Everyone get’s a kick from seeing the human race on it’s knees so that one man can come along and kick some butt, it’s all about hope in a desperate world, something we can all relate to given the current world climate, it’s why Superman remains one of the biggest icons.
    By the way it’s ‘Persephone’, and like most of the characters in the film the name does serve a purpose, in greek legend her name meant ‘she who destroys the light’, and according to myth she spent a great deal of time in the underworld (Zion) and was regarded as the most beautiful woman in the world. As she is a temptress in this film and seems a little evil, I think she’s an agent for the Matrix (haven’t seen the film yet), as in myth she spends six months in the underworld and then returns to the world above.
    So each name does have some symbolism attached to it, i.e Trinity obviously represents the holy trinity, even Neo has a meaning, although I can’t remember what it was.
    The films are using so many different references fom biblical to myth and I think that it does appeal to a lot of people.
    ADM

    in reply to: Who’s gonna die? #66017
    A -DM
    Participant

    Well you can’t say that Whedon’s lost touch with the fans, bringing Spike into Angel is an inspired move, of all the characters in Buffy I think Spike has the strongest appeal, although Spike fully restored as human makes Spike slightly less appealing, but then having two Vamps with a soul might take the gloss off Angel somewhat.
    I saw no mention of Vincent Kartheiser (Connor) in that new line up, so that was a short lived role for Angel’s brat.
    I don’t know why, but losing Cordy doesn’t seem that much of a loss too me, her character doesn’t seem too grow any, but it is a shame that the series is losing one of it’s founding cast members.
    As for SMG and her seemingly pompous attitude, well she hasn’t done that well outside of Buffy, aside from her small roles in some early films, her film reputation is nothing too be proud of, Scooby Doo is a film everyone cringes about and the only other one was an unheard of flick called Harvard Man, I really think she will soon be forgotten about and to be honest if she has behaved liked the spoilt little madam, then she thoroughly deserves it.
    My guess is that maybe a year and a half down the line she’ll be begging Whedon too resurrect her career, I hope he tell’s her too get stuffed.
    One other thing that adds weight to her immature behaviour and ‘I’m bigger than anyone else on Buffy’ attitude, is the Buffy game that came out on the X-Box, all the cast were happy to lend their voices for the game aside from SMG, well I for one am not going too miss her (I will miss Buffy) and wish her the worst.
    ADM

    in reply to: Who’s gonna die? #65979
    A -DM
    Participant

    Nice little twist on the ‘Shansu’ prophecy there Aleck, certainly would be a get out of jail for Spike, though Buffy and Angel ties in terms of the big bads in the two series haven’t been close, i.e why is it that the First is merrily slaughtering potentials worldwide, yet none seem too exist in LA, and why isn’t the First giving Angel some grief as well as evil Cordy?
    That’s what let’s the loose tie in’s down, everything is centered around either LA or Sunnydale, you’d think that The First might be pi**ed that evil Cordy and her dog ugly spawn was trying too steal it’s thunder!!!
    Yet off goes Willow and Faith quite casually too Sunnydale to face Buffy’s big bad, it’s nice too have these tie ins, but I think it would have been better having Angel also combatting The First on his home patch given that it’s Buffy’s swansong, although I do know that once Angel is done beating evil Cordy he’s off too Sunnydale to give Buffy a hand (kinda ruins the rest of the Angel season, coz you know that Angel will win the day before the day is out).
    My money is on Spike getting done over, but for me, Spike, Willow and Faith are the strongest characters, so I do hope that Spike does make it into Angel. Actually, given Angel’s brush with the axe, I think Whedon will use the opportunity to have Spike in Angel just so he can drag a few unhappy and maybe slightly relunctant Buffy fans along too.
    ADM

    in reply to: Who’s gonna die? #65927
    A -DM
    Participant

    anya’s gonna go, the actress has said shes not coming back, so it would make sense for it to be her

    Odd statement for her to make, seeing as there is nothing for her too come back to!!!

    ADM

    in reply to: #65926
    A -DM
    Participant

    Yup, I’m giving into the hype and getting pumped for Matrix Reload. I’ve been waiting for months for this one… now it’s almost here. Sure Neo and Trini are good but Morfeus is fine.

    I saw XMen X2, it was entertaining, may be even better than the first; but mousseing Hugh Jackman’s hair for those little horns should be a crime against humanity’s good looks. I can’t believe they are already doing the third…. is there no originality happening in Tinsel town? I know it’s about bucks there but holy crap! Let’s just beat an idea until it’s dead or doesn’t create revenue; the good old fashion American way. 🙄 😥

    Of course they’re doing a third, the X-men universe is massive and you can’t fit the whole idea into two films, heck it’s story has only just begun, there are so many more characters to be seen and thirtys years of comic book history to recreate, the whole idea is too make the films like the comics, ie everyone waiting too see what happens in the next installment.
    It could take up to 10 or more films for the X-men story to reach a crescendo, this is obviously what Marvel have planned for both X-Men, Spiderman and the Hulk, it won’t be like the Superman movies in that in each film a new story is introduced that doesn’t link too the previous ones, Marvel want their characters to evolve on film and it is Marvel that have the control to ensure this happens. They know how the minds of comic book fans work, each story is a progression of the last, and that’s how the movies are approaching it. So it’s not a case of being unoriginal at all, it’s what the fans want, for instance how could you expect to tell the story of Lord of the Rings if you decided to stop at the The Two Towers?, same goes for X-men, so much more story to come, the emergence of Phoenix, the Sentinels, Hank McCoy and Gambit and even Apocalypse just to begin with, there is a wealth of new stories direct from the comic books that need to be added.
    ADM

    in reply to: X-Men 2 – What did you think? #65869
    A -DM
    Participant

    I thought it was great, and aside from Anna Paquin, I think all the characters are well cast and Ian McKellen stole the show yet again.
    It’s hard too believe that Hugh Jackman almost wasn’t Wolverine, some actor called Dougray Scott was the original actor, I’ve recently seen him in Enigma and the guy would’ve made a very poor Wolverine.
    Personally I think those that bemoan the film because it’s not 100% faithful to the comics are being ridiculous, if it had been the case it would’ve been too camp and laughable, don’t get me wrong the comics are good, but the action in them is too extreme to be in a movie. The movie gives them substance and you can take them seriously, if we had someone applying the comic book approach then it would’ve resulted in another Batman & Robin.
    And you have too remember that this movie has too appeal to many, not just the hard core X-men fans, so accusations of dumbing down are too be expected from some quarters, I think that’s a tad selfish, jumping into an X-men universe where they know instantly what’s going on and leaving everyone else bemused is unfair.
    One thing I’m having an argument about is when Jean Grey first began too notice her new found powers, some bloke I know reckons the radiation from Magneto’s machine in the last movie caused her too turn into Phoenix (I don’t think so because it was said that the radiation doesn’t cause mutation in mutants). But when Jean tried too put off Cyclops from firing at Magneto and then felt guilty afterwards, I tthink was the first indication of Jean’s new persona coming through.
    I would strongly recommend seeing the movie, but if you are a die-hard X-Men fan then you’re always going too pick holes, so don’t bother going.
    My only gripe was Lady Deathstrike didn’t get much airtime, other than that it was very good and a worthy sequel as is reflected by it’s box office success.
    ADM

    in reply to: Smallville Wetty needing some spice… #65838
    A -DM
    Participant

    You’ll be glad to hear that the second season is as good as the first if not better, Clark has found a new power and a few more clues as too where he came from.
    The Lana love thing is getting hotter and Clark is getting closer (only to end up frustrating us all again).
    Lex and dad are always at each other’s throats and Lex decides to do something about it, whilst doing so Martha discovers that Lionel is up too no good in things concerning Clark.
    And we see some interesting side effects too Clark when he’s introduced too some red kryptonite.
    A close friend of Clark’s discovers his secret and almost let’s the cat out of the bag, Chloe discovers some rather surprising things about Clark, and Lana loses someone very special too her.
    All in all the series has built on an impressive first season, but no doubt the Americans will tire of it quickly and before you know it, it will be axed (a la Angel), again depriving the rest of the world of some quality entertainment.
    I have to say that Tom Weller has fitted in too his role as Clark as well as Christopher Reeve did for Superman, in fact I hope that when the next Superman film finally get’s made they take a long hard look at Tom (Nicholas Cage…oh PLEASE).
    ADM

    in reply to: angel’s knowlage #65709
    A -DM
    Participant

    No crossover, exactly.
    The closest it came too was after Buffy defeated Glory and then died, in the last ep of the season for Angel, we see the gang return to find a very forlorn Willow sitting on the couch in the main hall of the hotel.
    And you have too remember that the monks had either changed the memories of the entire world or just those that knew Buffy’s family, so even Angel and Cordelia would have those memories, so Angel probably knew about Dawn before Willow turned up.
    ADM

    in reply to: the first evil #65708
    A -DM
    Participant

    I thought that the Vampire conjured up by the first looked a bit silly, it was really small and didn’t look that scary, not quite as good of a make up job as ‘The Beast’ in Angel, just didn’t really give me the impression that this was one of the primate type vamps.
    BTW it wasn’t the First, (assuming we are talking about what’s happened thus far in UK Buffy), it was controlled by the First and the First brought it back, but the First can’t take corporeal (solid) form, so this vamp wasn’t it, just a minion like the bringers.
    ADM

    in reply to: Odyssey 5 #65676
    A -DM
    Participant

    Never got through an entire episode, fell asleep too many times, nice premise, it was just excruciately boring.
    ADM

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #65635
    A -DM
    Participant

    Well, just as it seems this war is won, the US leadership looks to be picking it’s next opponent…Syria, and in this case I don’t support action.
    I’ve always believed that the Iraq war has been jusitfied and I still stand by that, but if Bush is now looking to take on Syria, then I have to conclude that he is what so many have described him as being… a raving egomaniac.
    True Syria can be seen as a threat, but it’s too early to compare the dangers posed is equal to that of Saddam, ok, Syria obviously has a state sponsored terrorist programme going on, and if they are in fact producing chemical weapons then eventually they must be dealt with, but for gods sake Bush, the war isn’t even over in Iraq and the US are making hostile gestures to another middle eastern country.
    The danger then becomes that the world may have let the US have their way in this war, but taking it further so soon makes the US and her allie(s) (UK) more than just a target for the terrorists, it won’t be long before China, Russia and even European nations become fed up with it and challenge the US’s military might, Bush will be biting off more than he can chew if he looks to start on Syria.
    I doubt very much anyone in the UK will support this action as it then will look without a doubt as a war on Arabs, I would even say that the US people won’t be happy to see this happen.
    If Bush does declare an action against Syria then he needs to go, because he is then becoming too much of a threat, he is, in this case wrong, and should he target Syria, then this time he will need more than just hear’say to start a war, the proof has to be there and the UN needs to see it.
    Although, Syria are potentially dangerous, I would not class them as a threat that comes close to that of Saddam, certainly not right now, in this instance, time is an option we can afford, and I feel that Syria is more ameniable too diplomacy than that of the Iraqi regime, I would put Syria in the same class as say Libya, a danger perhaps, worthy of another war….Absolutely not.
    ADM

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #65612
    A -DM
    Participant

    - [ – Edited because dispite repeated requests to use the correct forms of accreditation, the poster has failed to do so. – ] –

    Excuse me, but it’s not as if I attempted to do this on purpose, I colour coded my posts at your request, it’s not my fault if your system can’t pick up the quotes, I’ve done the best I can, you can blame your software for that…not me.
    Instead of doing that, why don’t you just send me a private mail telling me how to get it too work properly, for christ’s sake I can build a P.C from scratch and have good understanding of all OS’s and other software, but your board and it’s constant ‘Excceeded Bandwidth messages’, logging me out whenever it feels like it and the stupid posting errors I keep getting give one big goddamn headache, so instead of whining about, why don’t you help me???
    ADM

    in reply to: Series Finale (Spoiler!) #65609
    A -DM
    Participant

    Does anybody else think the whole Willow thing was a bit of a Cop Out? After everyone else trying to reason with her, telling her that this wasn’t what Tara would have would have wanted, and it was Xander saying “I love you” that changed her mind? I just think that after the big buid up they gave it,it was a bit anti-climactic. Anybody agree/disagree?

    I thought that the scene was wonderfully done. A strong contrast to the beat-them-up Buffy.

    Just wondering has anyone noticed that evilWillow wanted to destroy the world with an ancient Satanic temple 😈 and the only thing that stopped her was the power of love by a kind gentle carpenter? :D[/quote]

    Ha,ha, Xander is the second coming, not how I imagined Jesus to return, but Xander is a really good laugh, so I’m happy!!!
    ADM

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #65607
    A -DM
    Participant

    – [ – Edited because dispite repeated requests to use the correct forms of accreditation, the poster has failed to do so. – ] –

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #65588
    A -DM
    Participant

    Few of us dare to argue facts with Aleck. I might dissagree with his views :), but argueing his facts is not worth the trouble.

    Saddy, it has been requested of me not too prolong an argument with Aleck, and I will abide by that, but I will say that for the best part he does not offer facts, but sheer speculation, he has no more insight to this war than the rest of us and his last post is not based on anything other than his own fears as too where this conflict may lead.
    ADM

    in reply to: The Philadelphia Experiment #65585
    A -DM
    Participant

    I told you if you get me started on this I won’t stop!!!
    I just read Elmey’s link and suffice to say it was dismissive of the whole affair, and to be honest I do believe it be correct.
    It’s still the science that nags at me, through it all the science of the experiment is plausible, we know that large gravimetric anomalies can distort light, i.e black holes, now there is nothing we could ever do to match that on Earth, if electro-magnetism can manipulate gravity then it’s reasonable to assume that it can affect light (Gravity that is…confused yet, you will be!!!).
    Light here on earth is slowed by the gravitational force on earth, effectively enabling us to see things around us, if it travelled as it does in the vaccum of space then we’d all be blind, it’s only slowed by a very small fraction, but it’s enough for us to discern things.
    The Bermuda Triangle can effectively be explained as a weak spot in the Earth’s gravitational force, at which point light is thrown off it’s normal speed on earth, giving the illusion that something will disappear, to the person inside that area it’s conceivable to assume that whatever exists in that area would be very frightening and for all good intentions they would be blind (and if you went blind all of a sudden then you would either fall overboard or not figure out how too feed yourself, it could also be that this light has disorientated the brain to the extent of scrambling your neurons and you are effectively mad, which may explain why people never return), equally if light can escape earth’s gravity at this point, then it could well be that more harmful rays could enter the area, in some cases the only thing that could stop the effect is a storm, heavy cloud cover or nighttime, it has been reported that many of the incidents in the triangle have been on a clear day, in which case there would be nothing to stand in the way of this effect. And also why the Philadelphia Experiment was reported to have been on done a clear day, the gravity bubble around the ship would not have had sufficient light hitting it to enable the effect too work if there was a storm or heavy cloud cover. The same effect can explained to mirages in the desert, if the light is too strong and gravity is weak, you will begin too se things, and in a desert enviroment, you have a great lack of cloud cover, also on a hot day you can see a shimmering effect on tarmac, that is light been distorted, not by heat, and that is a very minor infraction to light, so much so that is still in the limited range of our visual cortex, it is shown because we are at the lowest point of gravity on earth, as gravity is heavier at this point, thus enabling us to stand, or that at least is the assumption.
    You’ve all heard of people seeing a bright light just before they die, and that people sometimes have an aura emanating from them, well my guess that aura is in fact your own gravity, every single particle has a gravitational force in the universe, the larger the object the more powerful the gravity it exudes, we also have that force. And when you die the light you see is a result of your brain no longer being able to maintain the function of your visual cortex, thus allowing the other spectrums of light that you’d normally couldn’t see to be visible, in effect your light range in your eyes is weakened to a stage where it has a quick flurry of neuron activity, thus going beyond the normal sight we have and then blindness as we pass away.
    Like most things, there is a a divison that determines light depending on gravity, either light can absorbed or it can be refracted, but gravity determines at what speed either can occur.
    We have also seen applications that we use every day that can do things to light to aid us, from light refracting gogglesand sunglasses, light reflectors on bikes, and even the microwave oven. all of which manipulate light, all these items depend on how light reacts in our gravity and our made too suit it, but change that light and they would react differently.
    In the case of something like making a ship invisible, it would need a great deal of power to effect light, essentially warping gravity around you to allow light to hit you as it does in the vaccum of say a black hole or even possibly where light hits other large gravimetric bodies in space, at this point the light that hits an object then makes it appear invisible to the outside and blinds those who are on that object, as this light is distorted beyond the range of our visual cortex. It’s not impossible to believe because astronomers have seen evidence of gravity doing this in space, so equally, given the know how it’s not difficult too assume that it could be acheived with the right tools here on earth.
    The trouble is, is that due to our brains and our eyes we only believe what they tell us, we are so very primitive in this respect, as anyone who told you that they could see something there when you couldn’t see it, you would instantly class as mad, such is the beliefs that we have all been brought up with.
    But like or not there is another invisible range of light that we simply can’t detect with the naked eye, and that light is being distorted by gravity, so again if that invisible light could be used as a generated field around a ship, then no one would see it, it really is not implausible when you realise just how simple it is, we refuse to accept it because we as a race are too stubborn too go beyond our own preconceptions and it is dismissed as fantasy, I know it’s not.
    Remember, look at everything around you, the things we use to mould our world using nature and science, there is alot of stuff that we use that should for all intentional purposes defy what our brains tell us, we know it too exist, but we just can’t explain why it exists, for instance you could now be thinking, don’t be ludicrous, or this is the rantings of a very strange individual, or what cult is he getting me to sign up too!!!, but until we can accept what seems the impossible, we won’t see what is possible, luckily that’s science gives us, an outlet too seek it out without being branded a nutter.
    One other thing, the man Marshall Barnes in Elmey’s link said he could acheive the same result, but the TV network pulled out, I believe he can do it, and I believe the reason the station reneged is because they saw it for themselves and it became of great concern to them that it in fact might frighten people (which it most likely would), and at the same time may open a can of worms as far as the military is concerned.
    My guess is that it is possible to achieve, you just need to know at which point light would go beyond our visual cortex and the ability to generate an electro-magnetic field to distort gravity, we can probably never make an articifical gravity, because gravity is far too strong to emulate, but you can given enough power change it’s reaction to light, and therein lies the trick.
    ADM

    in reply to: The Philadelphia Experiment #65584
    A -DM
    Participant

    Oh, I almost forgot, one other story that was spun was that the offical crew of the Eldridge had not actaully been assigned to the ship during the period of the Experiment, and they did mention that the ship itself had not been launched during the event, it was built but had not been through testing or had been offically been made ready.
    So it could be said that this crew (the old men) were not aware of anything, as far as they were concerned they were the first to board her, sadly not enough evidence is provided for a for or against argument, documents may be correct or they may be falsified, the truth is , is that no one can prove it or disprove it.
    ADM

    in reply to: The Philadelphia Experiment #65583
    A -DM
    Participant

    Well that puts a whole new slant on it!, I guess some of the mythos has to be discredited, but most still won’t let go, and accuse these men of a cover-up, and to be honest why did they not admit as much a lot earlier on.
    I already these inaccuracies a long time ago, but for me the Philadelphia Experiment was just a link too the Unified Field Theory, which I think is of far greater interest than the supposed experiment.
    While all said and done, Jessop’s book did produce some remarkable science that in time may well be not far from the truth, but then the same could be said for Gene Roddenberry.
    I feel that UFT adds too the romance of the Experiment, but there is still a small amunt of evidence that was shown in several books to say that the Eldridge was involved, but unfortunately the evidence is fairly inconclusive.
    Obviously, the science is that if you tamper with the nature of the universe without really knowing what you’re doing, you are going to get burned (no pun intended!!!), I still believe that electro-magnetic and gravimetric forces are quite magical, and that many of today’s mystery’s can be linked to it, the truth is we still know very little about the Earth and the universe and what forces are at play.
    I imagine that the followers of the experiment and it’s myth will be both upset and angry at these old men, leading a great deal of people on a merry dance is no laughing matter, and I think they should be ashamed for not coming forth sooner.
    Even after all this though, one thing remains constant, that the US military does have a penchant for deceit and wind-ups, be it Roswell or the Phily Experiment, they just never want to tell it how it is, maybe like these old men they get a kick out of it, maybe they were honestly researching new technology and the Phily Experiment was a good smokescreen, either way it would be nice for us to know the truth, as a lot of science is more open and you’d think after 60 years they would put this one to bed for good.
    ADM

    in reply to: ‘Time-traveler’ Busted For Insider Trading #65576
    A -DM
    Participant

    Methinks, he’s been watching too much Timecop, in that film one of Jean Claude Van Damme’s partners breaks the law and goes back in time to play the stock exchange to aquire a fortune.
    But if it is serious that no evidence of him existing before Dec 2002 exists, then it does make you wonder, but then he could quite simply being using a false name.
    ADM

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #65563
    A -DM
    Participant

    Please tell me where you are getting this nonsense from?, I have yet to see anything that suggests that the Taliban are returning, so I suppose the US and UN are going to allow the Taliban too waltz back into Afghanistan after all the trouble it took to oust them?, and also that we’re going too allow Osama to come back, because if the Taliban do so, then you can be damned sure Osama would be back, doing so is a huge security risk and I don’t know what political lobby you subscribe to, but whoever they are they must be insane to think that this would be the case, so again I say you are posting unfounded rumour and gossip, and no I won’t accept a link from you as definitive proof before you start with that, because it’s most likely that it will be from the same places where this nonsense began

    The Associated Press. That’s where my “nonsense” is coming from. Do some research, please, before you start flying off the handle. Do a search for the headline “Taliban making a largely uncontested comeback in Afghanistan.” Reported from Kandahar, Afghanistan.[/quote]

    I read the papers every day, check Sky news on the net, so doing research is not neccessary, and I have not seen anything to say about the Taliban, or anything else you claim may or may not happen for that matter.
    So as far as I’m concerned you’re just a drama queen looking to make things look as negative and bleak as you possible can, you make assumptions that you can’t back up, and a lot of it is just personal supposition that has no credibilty whatsoever.
    FX was right, you’re just having a rant, personally I would call it a tantrum, but whatever the reason you have explored everything that can go wrong and then tried to maintain that this will in fact happen, when in truth you cannot make any claims to say that what you say will be the case.
    It’s people like you that put uneccessary fear and panic into people’s minds, you should leave well alone and don’t prejudge when you don’t know will happen.
    I know that like in the UK you have press in the US that try to paint another picture of this war, but they are just as bad as giving the correct information as the Iraqi communications minister, who said tanks had not got into Baghdad, while over his shoulder was an Abrams M1 tank parked, obviously this press is a feeder for people like you, who need to know things are going wrong even when it’s untrue, just so you can satisfy your own personal views.
    But one that does remain true, is that you don’t any extra insight into what will happen and no facts to back up the rubbish you’ve already spouted.
    ADM
    ADM

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #65562
    A -DM
    Participant

    out of all the arguments I have seen on this board, your’s is without a doubt the most ill-informed I have seen. You have absolutely no basis for any of what you have said.

    It’s not like you’ve been swimming in evidence of anything besides parroting what the official line has been (or whatever it happens to be at the given moment). You’ve been saying the same ill-informed crap over and over and over. Repetition doesn’t equal accuracy.[/quote]

    Oh and I suppose you’re the inside man are you?, and that offical line is all you get too receive as well, so quit patronising everyone for a change Aleck, it’s tiresome.
    And as for the saying the same crap over and over, well that’s because people like you only listen to your own conceited views, and as for repittion doesn’t equal accuracy, well neither does blatant lying…but that doesn’t stop you, does it.
    ADM

    in reply to: The Philadelphia Experiment #65561
    A -DM
    Participant

    Ah, I’m so glad you asked, the Philadelphia Experiment is one of my fav subjects (hee, you won’t hear the last of me now!!!).
    The actual experiment was not too cloak a ship, but it was looking for a way to make ships disappear from radar completely, the idea came from Einsteins Unified Field Theory, which was never finished and to this this day no one has completed.
    The device was an electro-magnetic generator that was capable of distorting gravity (that’s as simple as I can put it), it was said that the result was not cloaking, but teleportation, as the ship was transported to Norfolk, West Virginia where it was spotted by the only witness to come forward shortly after the event…Carlos Miguel Allende.
    During the teleportation, the sailors entered another dimensonal plane of existence and when the ship returned it had been scorched and the outline’s of sailors were burnt into the hull, those that survived had been burnt badly and some were dismembered.
    Also the local Philadelphia press ran a story claiming that two sailors in a local bar seemed to burn up into flames and then disappear, apparently no one survived the incident…the Navy subsequently denied all knowledge.
    The operation was called Operation Rainbow, as it was claimed that a rainbow effect would appear while the device was in use, the Navy had done initial testing of the device, but this was the first time it had been put into operation in a lengthy time.
    There is also photographic evidence showing Einstein at the docks near where the USS Eldridge was docked, leading many too believe he was assisting the navy in this.
    The experiment itself has never been tried again, although some speculate that a research lab near Manhatten, NYC had been conducting tests based on the Philadelphia Experiment.
    All those that had contact with Carlos Miguel Allende had mysteriously been killed when he tried to tell his story, yet he himself lived quite a long while after, although he eventually died through mysterious circumstances, shortly after he was interviewed again in the 60’s.
    It is my opinion that the Philadelphia Experiment, the Bermuda triangle and UFo’s can all be explained by the Unified field theory, as the bermuda triangle could well be a rift in the earth’s electromagnetic force, a point where gravity disrupts this field to an extent where things disappear naturally, whereas the experiment had the same effect, but the device could not sustain the power required to maintain this and the Eldrige appeared again seconds after it left the docks.
    I feel this story has some credibility behind it, given that UF theory was Einsteins biggest theory, bigger than that of the Atom Bomb, also that the US were desperate to get hold any weapon that Einstein could devise after the success of the Atomic bomb, for use against the Nazi’s.
    At this moment in time, no one can explain the relationship between electro-magnetism and gravity, we know it too exist, but we don’t know how, Einstein knew and he took it to his grave.
    ADM

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #65558
    A -DM
    Participant

    (B) As far as I know, there hadn’t been suicide bombers in Iraq prior to hostile military attacks on, and occupation of, the country. Fact is, the throngs of citizens welcoming us, the “liberators,” don’t exist.

    (Funny how how I’m seeing plenty of pictures of Shi’te muslims in Basra doing exactly what you say does not exist, and I suppose the people pulling down a Saddam statue while Iraqi crowds cheered was my imagination as well, so it’s not a fact Aleck, because you’re not there so you don’t know jack, my brother is there and I know from his recent post that the Iraqi people have been friendly).

    Most don’t want us there. We’re bombing restaurants and markets; we’ve cut off electricity and clean water to civilians; we’re grievously wounding and killing hundreds of civilians — not just armed forces, but innocent civilians. The people we’re supposed to be liberating.(

    Most do want us there, specifically the Shi’tes and Kurds, and as you don’t seem to keep up with the news, power and water has reconnected by British engineers in Basra. And the hundreds of civilians that you talk of, I don’t suppose those also include the human shields and those shot by Iraqi paramilitaries do they?, no let’s not include them, it’s far easier to pour blame on our soldiers isn’t it. This is a war, you cannot ever guarantee zero deaths among the populace, and those who look to be liberated and even those who are not are not stupid enough to think otherwise. Don’t try to make out that the soldiers are blatantly attempting to harm civilians because
    you do not know of what you speak.
    [/color]

    You think that’s going to result in us getting hugs and kisses? You think they’re looking forward to post-war Iraq and want us hanging around for however-many years it’s going to take? Of course they’re going to take desparately insane actions like this.

    Oh right, so we’ve gone into this war expecting gratitude, get real will you, the armed forces have gone in to do a job, they are not looking for ‘hugs and kisses’. And yes they are looking to a post war Iraq, or more specifically an Iraq without Saddam, but by your reasoning they should be happy too continue under that regime.
    As for the forces that remain behind, so you’re suggesting we leave them (the iraqi’s) as soon as we’re done then?, well that will send out a good message won’t it, you know as well as I do that the US will eventually be followed by a UN peacekeeping force in the country when it is deemed safe enough, but again by your odd logic the Iraqi people should be happy to see our backs once Saddam is gone, a broken country in need of rebuilding, schools and hospitals to be built, food and international aid, freedom to do as they choose without fear, I’d wan’t those who brought that about out as well, out of all the arguments I have seen on this board, your’s is without a doubt the most ill-informed I have seen. You have absolutely no basis for any of what you have said.

    All they have to do is look over at our victory in Afghanistan for their potential future — the people left to supervise the reconstruction going unpaid and leaving, chaos reigning supreme, and the people this was supposed to get rid of coming back with no opposition (that’s right, the Taliban is moving to take back Afghanistan because the US failed).

    Please tell me where you are getting this nonsense from?, I have yet to see anything that suggests that the Taliban are returning, so I suppose the US and UN are going to allow the Taliban too waltz back into Afghanistan after all the trouble it took to oust them?, and also that we’re going too allow Osama to come back, because if the Taliban do so, then you can be damned sure Osama would be back, doing so is a huge security risk and I don’t know what political lobby you subscribe to, but whoever they are they must be insane to think that this would be the case, so again I say you are posting unfounded rumour and gossip, and no I won’t accept a link from you as definitive proof before you start with that, because it’s most likely that it will be from the same places where this nonsense began.

    That’s a future I’m sure they’re looking forward to. But then, there’s the control of the oil fields — surely we’re not going to abandon *that*, so we’ll need to install a government that will ensure that nothing silly happens (like switching their oil trade currency standard from the US dollar to the Euro, possibly encouraging OPEC to follow suit and causing turmoil and economic crisis). And I don’t think any reminders need to be made of how successful the US government has been in installing people in places of power overseas. There’s a legacy of *stellar* human rights among those “friendly dictators.” Another something to encourage Iraqi citizens to welcome us with open arms.

    As has already been stated, the Iraqi oilfields make up for about three percent of the worlds oil trade, and has been stated on public record, the money used for sale of this oil will be used to fund the rebuilding of Iraq, and although the US is sceptical about allowing the UN to oversee it’s rebuilding, it’s most likely this will happen.
    And like Afghanistan there will be an interim govenrment, one that attempt to bring some stability until the Iraqi people are in a position to vote for their leaders, but before that happens there needs to be a ‘calming’ down period, in which a makeshift Iraqi government is installed.
    And given that everyone knows the US previous bad record, do you honestly believe that America will make another amazing blunder too happen?, the choices have to be left to the Iraqi people, the middle east is too volatile an area for America to ‘americanise or westernise’ a part of it, this is essentially a PR exercise, one that America cannot afford to get wrong, the need to ensure that this region is a success, otherwise it will be viewed negatively by other Arab states, there is already enough anti-american fervour in these Arab states, America needs to make friends out there, and if they get this right then it might be a small step in the right direction.
    [/color]

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #65557
    A -DM
    Participant

    I will attempt to do the same as Logan, by highlighting my response in blue, and I apologise Saddy, it does appear jumbled!!!

    ADM: Yes he is, he belongs to one of the strongest suits of muslim caste their is…Sunni Muslims, he killed the Kurds because of their religious beliefs, and he hates the Shi’te factions in the south and they hate him, it was only his paramilitary forces that kept them in check.

    Logan: No, I mean that I do not believe that he is a particularly religious man– just because you may belong to a religion does not neccesarily make you religious. And the Baath Party is considered to be secular as I said (certainly by Moslem standards) and he is the leader. He only uses religion for his own ends, as I intimated.

    ADM: I do not believe so, he does use religion to his own ends, but we don’t know how strong his belief in his faith is, maybe he does employ an approach that is akin to Stalin, but like so many other’s the middle east, a leader does require a following of religion to guide his actions. I go by his treatment of the other muslim groups in his country which he treats with disdain, his actions towards both Shi’te and Kurd indicate his attacks on them being for religious reasons. [/color]

    For what I’ve read and heard on the news, it was not because of religious beliefs particularly that he killed the Kurds, it was because he saw them as a threat — especially to his party’s control of the oilfields in Northern Iraq. BTW, do you think in Turkey that they’vre been killed the Kurds for religious purposes only — I don’t. Again with the Shiites, they were considered a threat (religion may have been used by some — I don’t know — in the Baath Party to justify these actions. Also, there is a huge Shiite population in Iran and Iraq was fighting them, aso in part due to oil like with the invasion of Kuwait (that was when Iran was the US’s enemy and Iraq was their ally) — I don’t think I need spell out the ramifications. BTW, you do know that Tariq Aziz is a Christian, right?

    ADM: Again, we can only speculate on how religious he is and to what are we making a comparison too?, I think he would find it difficult too convince suicide bombers to attack the coalition if they didn’t believe in his religious conviction, like Osama, he has said that such people will attain their place in heaven for their actions, but these people would need to know that he is sending them to their deaths with a strong religious belief.

    Logan: As for similarities between the practises of the early NAZI party ( who were democratically elected as you know) and the Bush administration (which was…), think of as broad examples only (particularly since the horrible events of 9-11) increased miltarism, a decrease in civil liberties, nationalism, increased xenophobia, an international agenda that will bow to noone, and a strike first attitude.

    BTW, “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (aka The Bush Doctrine), has me very scared indeed; as if the Monroe Doctrine wasn’t bad enough! 😯

    Of course (to use an old idiom) one can draw similarities between apples and oranges if one desires — they’re both fruit for instance. But just because there are many differences doesn’t mean that there are no similarities — and I understood what he was getting at, and what he was not getting at. I think people need to be a little more generous with their replies, and try to think through what the other person is saying more (my humble opinion).

    ADM: Oh, yes and don’t forget America claiming it’s the master race and that the Jewish people deserved to be wiped out, oh and good choice America to start of your world domination, a third world country, while Nazi Germany was taking over countries bordering it, America decides to start their world domination by invading a dusty, not particularly rich third world country.
    Your description of America can be added to any of the top six nations of the world, and of course you going to have increased Xenophobia, especially when two large planes smash into the side on one of your national treasures, your reasoning for linking the US to the Nazi’s is absurd, try to come up with something a little more compelling next time.

    Logan: Ah, I think you missed my point by a long-shot (again). My point was that one can draw parallels (I never said it was a good thing to do so), just as one can find dissimilarities, and I understood what Lexxrobotech was getting at, and I find your atiitude “ungenerous” to him to his argument to say the least. He never said they were the same… I’ll leave it at that.

    ADM: My attitude being ‘ungenerous’ is exactly that, I don’t believe that this sort of talk has any merit whatsoever, you can apply the same principles to many countries, but he has obviously singled out America and only America to say such things, you can’t ignore that he is making a comparison between Nazi Germany and the US, but for so many reasons he is wrong, the examples to show a link between the two are not enough to be convincing, like I said these same examples can and do apply to other western countries, but that does not make them akin to Nazi Germany. For instance you can draw a comparison that the American are an intensely proud people, as were the Germans during the time of the nazi’s, but in no way can you assume this makes them the same, it is loosely based at best, and what he say’s serve’s no function but too insult Americans.

    Logan: Just something that still bugs me…

    BTW, ADM, you’re an old veteran of the war thread, why do you call people who organise war protests etc. cowards? Surely they are putting themselves at risk, just as protesters have been shot, arrested, interrogated, black listed, harassed, harangued, tortured etc. in many places on many occassions (including here using at least one of those examples), and can therefore not be called cowards. For me the coward is he who is too scared to speak out, or take any action despite his beliefs. How do you define “coward”?[/quote]

    ADM: Do you actually read any of these posts at all?
    Ummm to take action despite his beliefs for starters, i.e instead of whining about how the war is wrong, give me the solution that will stop it, and please spare me the diplomacy routine, I want a solution that means no bloodshed.
    But my main attack is the cowards that use this war to their own advantage, they are not interested in the War, they use people like you to get another point of view across, look for them at these demonstrations, they are not hard to miss, they will be the ones showing their political allegiance on placards, these are the cowards, they are also the organisers of such demonstrations, and people like you are their mouthpiece.
    ADM[/quote]

    Logan: Still looking for clarification…

    Do you read my posts? You haven’t answered my question, or if you did I missed it again. A coward is “someone who is easily frightened or intimidated by danger or pain” (OED). So why are they cowards? Specifically cowards. It’s funny that you called them cowards again before even answering my question, and I think I can see a little begging the question in your posts.[/quote]

    And yet again you pay no heed to my posts, in fact I used your own description of a coward to answer your question, or do you not remember posting the bit about ‘or take any action despite his beliefs’.
    You cannot interpret the literal use of the word ‘coward’ to this, my understanding of a coward is for someone to incite disorder whilst not having the guts to admit as much, which is akin to ‘or take any action despite his beliefs’, or someone who is frightened of confrontation when faced with a challenge to their beliefs, both in your own description and in the OED’s explanation can you find why I call these people cowards.
    Specifically to use other people’s beliefs and fears, using them as a front for your own beliefs whilst never admitting that this is your intention, for me that is a form of cowardice. An example in it’s simplest form, like a playground bully, the bully starts a fight, he starts to lose the fight, he then uses other people’s agenda’s to get other’s into the fight on his behalf, and then the bully leaves them to fight for him, he has left other’s to make the confrontation for reasons that had originally nothing to do with them
    .

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #65548
    A -DM
    Participant

    Considering your own diplomatic skills, ADM, I can see why you would be so convinced that a more diplomatic solution was impossible.

    Oh, so I need to be a diplomat to post here, oh excuse me I didn’t realise that was a neccessity, I’ll sign up for a course so I can continue posting here…but in the meantime you can go too hell!!!j/k

    Seriously, this discussion was never going ot be as light as other topics debated on this board, and nor should it be, I’m not saying we should start throwing insults at each other, but chew on this, if I can’t get you to see my point of view, and you can’t get me to see your’s, then why on earth do you think diplomacy will work on someone (Saddam) who wasn’t listening in the first place???
    ADM

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #65546
    A -DM
    Participant

    I want to clear up what is a misconception amongst some people (not sure where you heard it): Saddam is not really religious (although he calls on the religion now — jihad — so as to garner support from Arab peoples) — his party’s secularism is one reason why bin Laden hated it so much. He modelled himself after Stalin (even had similar purges after gaining power in a coup), and the Baath Party is secular (not religious), in fact it was originally founded on socialist principles.

    **Yes he is, he belongs to one of the strongest suits of muslim caste their is…Sunni Muslims, he killed the Kurds because of their religious beliefs, and he hates the Shi’te factions in the south and they hate him, it was only his paramilitary forces that kept them in check.

    As for similarities between the practises of the early NAZI party ( who were democratically elected as you know) and the Bush administration (which was…), think of as broad examples only (particularly since the horrible events of 9-11) increased miltarism, a decrease in civil liberties, nationalism, increased xenophobia, an international agenda that will bow to noone, and a strike first attitude.

    **Oh, yes and don’t forget America claiming it’s the master race and that the Jewish people deserved to be wiped out, oh and good choice America to start of your world domination, a third world country, while Nazi Germany was taking over countries bordering it, America decides to start their world domination by invading a dusty, not particularly rich third world country.
    Your description of America can be added to any of the top six nations of the world, and of course you going to have increased Xenophobia, especially when two large planes smash into the side on one of your national treasures, your reasoning for linking the US to the Nazi’s is absurd, try to come up with something a little more compelling next time.

    BTW, “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (aka The Bush Doctrine), has me very scared indeed; as if the Monroe Doctrine wasn’t bad enough! 😯

    Of course (to use an old idiom) one can draw similarities between apples and oranges if one desires — they’re both fruit for instance. But just because there are many differences doesn’t mean that there are no similarities — and I understood what he was getting at, and what he was not getting at. I think people need to be a little more generous with their replies, and try to think through what the other person is saying more (my humble opinion).

    Just something that still bugs me…

    BTW, ADM, you’re an old veteran of the war thread, why do you call people who organise war protests etc. cowards? Surely they are putting themselves at risk, just as protesters have been shot, arrested, interrogated, black listed, harassed, harangued, tortured etc. in many places on many occassions (including here using at least one of those examples), and can therefore not be called cowards. For me the coward is he who is too scared to speak out, or take any action despite his beliefs. How do you define “coward”?[/quote]

    **Do you actually read any of these posts at all?
    Ummm to take action despite his beliefs for starters, i.e instead of whining about how the war is wrong, give me the solution that will stop it, and please spare me the diplomacy routine, I want a solution that means no bloodshed.
    But my main attack is the cowards that use this war to their own advantage, they are not interested in the War, they use people like you to get another point of view across, look for them at these demonstrations, they are not hard to miss, they will be the ones showing their political allegiance on placards, these are the cowards, they are also the organisers of such demonstrations, and people like you are their mouthpiece.
    ADM

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #65542
    A -DM
    Participant

    Hi All,
    I believe in a peaceful solution to getting Saddam, if he’s still alive, to reveil all the weapons of mass destruction, then inprison him; I don’t believe in creating World War III, which we’re in right now. By the time this war began, the UN was finding all kinds of things that would make a weapon, not just the Chemical & Bioligical weapons. We should be supporting our soldiers, not the guy who put them them, President Warmogar Bush, or as my parents like to call him, King George; King George is the 1 we should rally against, not the soldiers.
    (edited by FX) squish, check your email
    Get Saddam to reaveal where his weapons are?, what do you think the UN inspectors have been trying to do for crying out loud, oh, and if he reveals where they are he can then go too prison, wow, what generosity, I’m sure he’ll want to tell all after that offer.
    And yes they were finding missiles, but not the large quantities of Sarin and Anthrax that Blix had documented proof on, that was the big target, and they couldn’t find it because a:Saddam catergorically denied it’s existence, and b: they didn’t know where to look.
    And for the last bloody time Jhevz, it’s not WW3, you need a world to be involved for that too happen, at at the last count it was three countries, so for christ sake stop calling it WW3.

    I think that anyone who for this war should read the peaceful, Anti-Bush posts, so that may be there can be an understanding to anyone who’s opposing this war; I also think that if anyone who’s for this war believes that those of us opposing this war is Anti-American, not supporting our Troupes & pro-terrorism, better realize & understand that there are many of us who oppose World War III & are Anti-Bush, but we do support our soldiers; we’re just Anti-King George, & none of us support terrorism, you just pay way too much attention on those Protestors who make the rest of us who oppose this war like fools. Yes, I’m opposing this war, but I believe there are peaceful solutions to everything; anyway, it’s King George who wanted World War III in the 1st place.

    Fair enough it you don’t like Bush, but using that as an excuse to stop a war to rid the world of Saddam is really lame, as most of the anti-war brigade seem to enjoy a bit of Bush bashing over what is more important, i.e the removal of Saddam, I choose to ignore their rants.
    And you like everyone else in this merry band of anti war posters has yet to provide a solution, you post and then post some more on how much you hate Bush, blah, blah blah, but not one of you has come up with a viable solution for a peaceful outcome.
    So for all your Bush bashing and anti US foreign policy and what the US has done in the past, and let’s hang Bush and Blair becuase their war criminals rubbish, not one has given a solid answer to my request to a peaceful solution that requires not a shed of blood be dropped to rid the world of Saddam…WHY?…because you can’t, and for this reason alone your posts are worthless, and with it comes the conclusion that this war is justified, because at the end of all tyour protestations for peace you have nothing to offer other than your personal dislike for Bush, America and anything else you think might be wrong in the world.

    In all the posts I’ve been reading here, I don’t hear or see anyone writing about what’s going happen after this war’s over & the US has conquered & taken over Iraq; no body’s writing about post-war Iraq, it’s all just about the war. I’d like to have something written about what will happen after this war’s over.
    Take care, have a nice April & Peace be with you, all.

    **Are you completely blind or do you just have selective reading disorder???, I’ve already posted what’s likely too happen, and the US isn’t conquering Iraq, conquering Iraq means an that it becomes part of the US, and I certainly haven’t heard plans to that effect.
    ADM

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #62625
    A -DM
    Participant

    so while we discuss the war, let us leave out the antiamerican rhetoric, and talk about how, outside of force, we are seriously going to get saddam, or the terrorists, to bow to outside pressure and come to the table and talk…do you seriously think all these suicide bombers are going to say, gee you are right, what was i thinking? reason only works with the reasonable…why haven’t all the socalled peaceful muslims banded together to toss these terrorists out? i am not being contentious, i am simply still waiting for a reasonable answer….

    (1) Bring Hussein up on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Doing so has helped force more than one tyrant out of office.

    **He’s already up on charges of crimes against humanity, Amnesty international has put forward a strong case in light of his treatment of the kurds, yet oddly he is still in office, secondly, do you honestly think he will answer to a tribunal set by the west?

    (2) Use the military we’re currently using to bomb the hell out of Baghdad to support the UN inspection process — which was working already. (Oh, and news break: there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. British Home Secretery David Blunkett has already admitted that WMD may never be found in Iraq. The closest we’ve come? Pesticide. Yep, Weapons of Mass Insect Destruction. The question of WMD *only* came up at the time that we sought UN approval. It was never mentioned previous to that because *it wasn’t an issue* even though Iraq was known to be the next stop after Afghanistan.)

    **Oh so we’re wrong to bomb Iraq, but we’re right to do it while UN inspections go on, and the point of that would be?
    And how can you say that the inspection process was working?, Hans Blix already stated he knew Saddam had weapons, but was unable to provide strong enough evidence, I would say that was an abject failure on their part.
    **NEWS FLASH** A number of missiles has been found that may have been tipped with chemical and biological agents, Hans Blix had documented evidence of missing chemical weapons, yet Saddam denied their existence.
    And the question of WMD did not only come up when seeking UN approval, it was well known after the last gulf war what weaponary Saddam may have possesed, and during the time between that war and this one, weapons inspectors had been sent in, so it has been a mitagating factor all along.
    And of course the question of WMD is going to be raised witihin the UN, the UN requires full disclosure from the US as too why they seek a resolution on war, so of course it’s going to be mentioned.

    What suicide bombers are we talking about, FX? You mean the ones that came from Saudi Arabia on behalf of a terrorist organization acting on behalf of a Saudi in hiding in Afghanistan to attack the WTC and the Pentagon? Because they’re not part of the conflict we’re currently discussing, nor are they even remotely connected to the conflict we’re discussing, and so they should not be considered part of the discussion on Iraq. No evidence links them, any evidence that was cited beforehand linking Iraq and Al Qaeda has been proven to be false, and this connection has just been repeated over and over in order to get people to believe it
    despite its inaccuracy.[/quote]

    **Wrong Aleck, the same groups of people that came to assist the Taliban have been reported as active within Iraq, as the Taliban had links too Al Qaeda, so do these people, so FX’s statement is correct. No documented proof linking the Iraqi regime to either the Taliban or Al Qaeda is present, but that in no way means you can rule out a link between them, at the moment Hezbollah are in Iraq supporting Republican Guard, but this has been reported as a visual sighting, and other active cells from terrorist organisations have been spotted. We all know Al Qaeda is lying low, it’s unlikely that it will commit it’s supporters to Iraq while so many US and UK special forces are there, for fear of capture and disclosing information that may lead to the capture of Bin Laden.
    But you cannot discount the possibilty of Al Qaeda approaching the Iraqi regime if this war had not taken place, for that matter any terrorist organisation.
    And at the nd of the day there is a considerable risk of Saddma linking up with Al Qaeda, but it’s some people will ignore that risk until evidence is provided, by which time they have attacked again and then you’re proof is found amongst the dead of innocent civilians, personally, I would prefer to extinguish any chance of that happening.
    ADM

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #62623
    A -DM
    Participant

    Firstly – give diplomacy a full chance at working. (This wasn’t done… the US felt it was taking too long)

    Secondly – get the UN backing

    Thirdly – attack as a last resort only.

    You know, under Apartheid you had two complete opposite sides in an evil national conflict. What happened is that two great men (De Klerk and Mandela) got together, then got both evil factions together and thrashed it out behind closed doors. A peaceful solution was found, and the New South Africa was born. The evil militant blacks and the white racist dictatorship was destroyed and the South African public as a whole was freed. Without war. Without bloodshed. Diplomacy.

    **South Africa has no bearing in this conflict and there isn’t anything to say that what worked in South Africa will work here.
    For starters it took the two main political leaders to resolve their differences, do you honestly think that Saddam is going to sit down with Bush and thrash out a peaceful solution?, this isn’t about two cultures sharing the same country as with SA, you are so way of the mark with this it’s unbelievable, peace was achieved within a country that didn’t threaten the security of the west, it has absolutely nothing to do with this conflict and as a result your attempt to liken your country’s success would never work in this scenario.
    Saddam hates the west, diplomacy is an action that only works in the west, Saddam is not going to be told how to behave in a country that he more than runs, in his mind Iraq belongs to him, as do the Iraqi people.
    And the US was right, it was not so much taking so long, more so that it would’ve taken longer, and all the while Saddam is given more time to play cat and mouse and either deploy or create more weapons, that simply is not a risk worth taking when everyone knows at the end of the day Saddam is a threat, that if left alone would attack the west.
    ADM

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #62621
    A -DM
    Participant

    Lexxrobotach wrote:ADM – Read my posts. I don’t understand why you keep going back to Sadam. I hate the guy just as much as you do. My wish was that diplomacy could have been given a chance. It wasn’t given enough chance to. I have been in battles, which is why I would have liked to have seen diplomacy fully used. War should only be a last measure, and in this case it wasn’t.

    You don’t understand why I keep going back to Saddam???, what war are you watching?, it’s because it’s about Saddam, it’s not about your gripes over the US’s foreign policy, if you want to go on a US bashing spree then start a new thread, this one is about the war, it has nothing to do with what you feel America has done in the past.
    And you’re saying read your posts, well why should I when you’ve clearly not read mine, if you had you’d realise that diplomacy doesn’t work with Saddam, you’re not dealing with other UN countries that recognise diplomacy, you know nothing of Saddam, if you did you’d know that it’s obvious diplomacy is just a tool for him to buy more time for him. While a diplomatic solution is attempted, Saddam is saying what you want to hear, while in reality he has no intent of following anything set down by the west.
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Saddam doesn’t come from our culture, he doesn’t follow our rules, telling him to do something is not going to work…ever, the threat of war means nothing to him, whereas an actual war does. And after all the diplomatic avenues have dried up, where will we be?…in Iraq and engaged in war, that’s where, and all that the diplomacy had resulted in, is buying Saddam more time to prepare for it by getting his hands on more weapons, possibly even nukes, so I say again…Diplomacy and UN Inspections mean nothing to Saddam and are as a result doomed to failure.
    And as you so inaccurately quoted a likeness to the US and NAzi Germany, here’s another thing you should know. The UN (or league of nations as it was then) did nothing but try to find a diplomatic solution to the impending crisis that led too WW1 and WW2, when they finally realised they could not get the Nazi’s too listen, it was too late.
    There is a time a place for diplomacy, this conflict isn’t one of them, for diplomacy too work both parties need to play ball, and Saddam was never going to. Diplomacy is an invention for the west, Saddam has no interest in what we declare morally wrong, he answers only to Allah and not western diplomacy, his beliefs are based on religion, everything he does is governed by the belief that God has wished him too take such action, he rationlises his actions by what he believes God has asked of him, no diplomacy, politics or inspections is going to sway him in that belief, and If you really do think that diplomacy is the answer then I’m afraid you live in a fantasy world.
    ADM

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #65525
    A -DM
    Participant

    This is NOT a personal attack. ADM, I think you don’t have a clear view of current events. To me you seem to be really emotional about this war, and don’t seem to have given the issues at hand clear thought…..

    **Equally, you have no facts to say what I write is untrue, I don’t need too support any of what I say with facts, you only have too look for yourselves.
    A lot of my posts won’t sway anyone, but I’m not blinded with anything other than the one fact that Saddam is the reason this war is happening, and I don’t care who does takes him out so long as someone does, and I know for that too happen war was neccessary, in this instance it is a black and white world, they is no grey, there is no other choice.
    But until this war is over and the job is done the accusations thrown at America don’t mean ‘jack’, leave it until after Saddam has gone, at least that way America has bought you more time to throw accusations at them.
    ADM

    in reply to: angelus’ return (spoilers) #65508
    A -DM
    Participant

    okay, so this was more talking than action, but you got to love how unredeemably nasty angelus can be…i mean, spike always took genuine boisterous pleasure in being the big bad but angelus always thought about how to get the most bang out of every victim; it’s like the blood was always secondary for him…:)

    well, gotta say i enjoyed this one overall, particularly the sick look on cordy’s face when she realized she had seriously baited angelus, but the soul has gone missing so it will be awhile until they can get angel back 😉 and now there is one very pissed off angelus looking for payback with cordy…

    all right everyone, so who’s going to get killed next week? maybe queen cordy? and did mentioning faith in tonight’ s episode mean that her upcoming appearance will be just in time to fight angelus?and how did that pesky soul go missing? was it conner or the beast? oh, i can’t wait !!!

    Isn’t Angelus just do deliciously evil!?!
    Boreanaz really can do a good turn, playing Angel one moment and Angelus the next, two entirely different characters. I love Angelus, he’s the type you love to hate, you gotta admire him, he toys with people so well, even ol’ Wes couldn’t handle him, Wes is really clever and cunning in his own right, but he’s in the schoolboy league when faced against Angelus. Wes, out of all them came close to getting at Angelus, but Angelus’ still knocked him for six, I was kinda hoping Wes would win the intellect battle.
    I’d actually thought (not remembering too well what Angelus was like the last time he paid a visit) that all the pre-Angelus hype was OTT, but boy, he didn’t fail too deliver and Gunn and poor Fred were undone within minutes, Connor didn’t fare much better either, one word about Holtz and Connor was running for the hills.
    To be honest Cordy’s approach was really poor and it let it down to see Angelus fall for the old ‘Tell us what you know and I’ll sleep with you’ routine, can’t see Cordy doing that because it will cost Cordy her life.
    As for Connor or the Beast pinching Angel’s soul, my money’s on Connor, the Beast always make a mess when he’s about, besides the Beast wouldn’t bother nicking his soul, he’d just kill them all.
    I could be wrong but I get the feeling it’s Angelus and not Angel who finally defeats the beast, may be with the help of Faith.
    Well done to Boreanaz for giving Angelus such bite (excuse the Pun).
    ADM

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #65500
    A -DM
    Participant

    What I mean by that A-DM is after the US takes over Iraq & liberates the people, who’s going to become President of Iraq & who would want that job; also, since our Troupes have seized Saddam International Airport, there’s no way in knowing how the citizens of Bagdad are going to respond to our Troupes. Hopefully this time, we’ll take Saddam down & not do like 1991 & just leave the Iraqi people hangin’ yet 1 more time.

    **That’s a simple question to answer Jhevz, there is an opposition to the Ba’ath (Saddams Rgeime) party, it is an underground movement for obvious reasons, and most are dissedents who have fled Iraq. The same has happened in Afghanistan, the former political bodies who fled have returned to govern that country, the Iraqi people will not fall under the rule of an American president, the US knows that will not work, but the US will insist that democratic elections are part of Iraq’s makeup, this would allow the Iraqi people the same rights we have when electing our leaders.

    There’s no arguement that both pro & anti groups are supporting our Troupes oversees & pray they return safely; it’s why they’re there in the 1st place. I support our Troupes in memory of the 3 Vaughn men (Great Uncles Clem & Marion & Granddaddy, G. H. Vaughn) who came back alive from serving World War II; also, I do pray for our Troupes safe return back home, so they can be with their families again.
    Here’s what I think should’ve of happened instead us going to war with Iraq: President Bush needed to listen to the UN Officials & why France, China, Germany & Russia oppose this war, let the UN Officials keep finding these `weapons of mass destructions’ & let them (UN Officials) finish their work they’ve started & finish his work that he started, & still ongoing, in finding the Tallyban in Afghanistan, 1st; this President will be known as the unfinished President, he never finishes what he starts. This is just my own opinion & also the way I feel about it.

    **The UN officals would never have found it all, Iraq is too big a country for that too succeed, and Saddam is far too clever to allow them to get close enough, he was moving his labs around to avoid weapons inspectors. You have to remember that the creation of biological, chemical and even nuclear devices does not require huge sprawling facilities, the reaction for a nuclear test can be done in a very small confined area, as all that is needed is the knowledge too produce the chain reaction in atoms to know how to get a nuclear weapon to work, and weapons grade plutonium and uranium is like a very fine dust, only visible by it’s radioactive output.
    His chemical weapons programme is even easier to conceal, as it only needs a drop of anthrax to kill a hundreds of people, it can be concealed in milk tankers or in just about anything, and unlike radioactive materials, it is virtually untraceable, as many chemical and biological weapons don’t survive in an airborne environment for long, the only real tell tale signs are the use of protective clothing and anti-serums. And even if the weapons inspectors had found the thousands of missing litres of Anthrax, Sarin and mustard gas, all that would happen is that Saddam would be required too destroy them, which he would do, but whilst doing that he would be cooking up another batch elsewhere.
    Also, even if enough proof was gained, what would then happen, I’ll tell you, we would be exactly where we are now…at war.
    Saddam is very adept at playing cat and mouse games, the time it would’ve have taken to disarm Saddam would have been long, and in that time remains that incredible danger of Saddam slipping it out of the country for use for terrorist organisations like Bin Ladens, in which case he (saddam) can deny all responsibilty for any attack that is made, worst of all is that in that time he can finally get his hands on weapons grade plutonium or uranium, it is too much of a risk to leave Saddam in control, he and Bin Laden could easily have led a worldwide campaign of terror and by the time we realised what he was really up to it would’ve have been too late, do you really feel safe when there is even a remote chance of that happening?, oh and from someone who knows a bit about science, I can tell you it’s not to difficult to place chemical, biological or nuclear materials inside a missile, and that’s why the inspectors concentrated on the destruction of missiles more than anything else, but if you take away his missiles, he still has the capability to deliver these weapons, Bin Laden or any other terrorist could help with that, it could be done in a suitcase or in a hijacked plane, plenty of suicide bombers looking to get to heaven that would happily march into your local McDonalds with an atomic/radioactive/chemical or biological weapon. The fact is, is that weapons inspectors can’t ever hope to trace everything Saddam has, he had the upper hand, if they ever got too close he would kill the scientists involved and even possibly kill the inspectors and then blame it on a terrorist cell, it really is a no-win situation.
    As for China and Russia, I do believe they are honourable and wish to see an aversion to war, but they do so because like all of us they fear a possible escalation, France and Germany have other motives, which I believe are not so honourable.

    There’s no disagreement that Saddam Hussain is a terrible person & should be oust, but as I said before, who’d take over as President of Iraq, who’d want the job & it would be the toughest job after this war’s over; our job there is not done & I do hope our President doesn’t just leave the Iraqi people hangin’ like his father did, then who knows what will happen.

    **Like I said, there will be an Iraqi government in place, Bush and Blair will not risk the wrath of the rest of the world if they do not adhere to what they have already promised, but the job will be difficult because Saddam’s regime is made up of Sunni muslims, whereas the majority of Iraqi’s are Shia muslims, and along with the Kurds it makes for a very volatile mix of religious groups who don’t get along. If you put a Shia government in place you then have one that sees Iran as a friend and Saudi Arabia (sunni) as an enemy, if you leave the Sunni’s in control you effectively leave Iraq as it is now, the Shia’s won’t accept that, the Kurds can’t take power because they are a minority group that neither the Shia’s or Sunni’s will accept, so yes it will prove very difficult to say the least.
    As for us withdrawing troops, yes the bulk will go, but a UN peacekeeping force will remain and it will be quite sizable, as the UN members will commit troops to tour in Iraq.
    And yes George Bush Snr should have finished the job, but my guess is that civilian casualties would have been far heavier back then, my guess is that he was advised that next generation precision bombs were being tested at that time but were not ready for deployment, he may have decided that the gulf war then would have been too costly as world opinion was beginning to go against him, and the huge losses inflicted on the Iraqi people would have left America in a very dangerous position at that time.
    The fact is, is that the American people also did not have much faith in Bush Snr, they saw him as incompetent, and they don’t have much faith in his son either, I don’t think the American people realised that Bush Jnr would take this path and didn’t see it coming, so now he has been labelled war hungry because Clinton did not get involved in any war like this, it looks bad because of that, both generations of Bush’s taking America too war, it’s an unfortunate coincidence in which people who oppose Bush use to it’s fullest effect. In a way, the only thing Bush Jnr can do is win this war to show that the Bush name does fulfill what it set’s out to do, anything less and Bush Jnr will be derided as much as his father has been, your President has to juggle this with the interest of your own security, he has too look out for you, and he would never have been put in this position if two planes had not slammed into the twin towers, all that has happened since is related to that one incident, and your President knows that Iraq can afford to not only bankroll terrorism but also supply the weapons to make 9/11 pale into insignificance. And although that I agree that America’s involvement in other conflicts has not been handled the best way and will forever come back too haunt the US, it has too be said that Bush Jnr is the President of the United States, it has to be his job to protect you at all costs, if you criticise him for that, then Saddam and his ilk have already won.
    ADM

    Take care, have a nice April & peace be with you all.

    **You too Jhevz, let’s hope that one day peace will prevail.

    Pray for our Troupes safe return Home,
    Jhevz

    in reply to: The WAR! – Who is on Who’s side? #65497
    A -DM
    Participant

    Very good post Rag, although like Fluffy Bunny I don’t believe this war is about the oil, yes the end result being that the trade to America and other countries would be of benefit, but to the benefit of the Iraqi people, for too long Saddam has squandered Iraq’s riches in which oil tops the list. But as the US have already said on record that the oilfields are being preserved for the good of the Iraqi people, I believe that back-tracking on that statement would be catastrophic in terms of US relations in Russia and China.
    I still say that this war is about the national security of both America and the UK, Saddam being around gives the ammunition to terrorists that would make 9/11 look small in comparison, but we are all not foolish to believe that this war is just about the Iraqi people being freed, I think we all know that in the politicians eyes that is just an added bonus.
    And kudo’s for realising that even though you are against war you do read the situation well, you are probably the first person who has posted against war to acknowledge that another solution is not available, because like I said before, even if diplomacy was used at great length, or weapons inspectors were too continue it would still bring us back to war eventually, with it happening now it at least denies Saddam time to get more dangerous weapons.
    I don’t know if anyone has seen the news recently, but the dying Iraqi regime is threatening to use ‘uncoventional’ means to get US troops too surrender, I’d have to say that’s the biggest sign that Saddam is ready to deploy his biological and chemical arsenal, and if that’s the case then this war has just become more justified.
    Because to Saddam, you and me are just as guilty as our brave soldiers, he doesn’t see us as harmless civilians, we ARE the enemy, every single one of us, and he doesn’t care who rallied for peace, they are as much his enemy as those who feel war was neccessary, and if you don’t think he would have allowed terrorists access to these dreadful weapons, then I’m sorry to say that you need to open your eyes.
    All we may have done is brought the world a bit more time, I think we all know what can and just might happen, but make no mistake, war or not, it may prove inevitable, but I really do pray I am wrong.
    You truly have to weigh up the pros and cons, yes this war is dangerous and could lead to more trouble, but at the same time doing nothing would most likely be at a higher cost, and we would be the one’s paying that price in our thousands.
    Time is always against us on this one, the only hope we truly have is that Arab states recognise that this was an action that needed to be taken, but given the people of these countries dislike the west strongly it will take a lot of faith, America and the UK need to build bridges in the middle wast after this, the problem lies with the fact that the only way this can be done is with money, but all the Arab nations are like warlords who place territory above all else, and if you help one, then another sees it as unfair and it works against you, i.e if you choose to help Syria then Iran sees it as a hostile gesture, more importantly it’s likely that the Arab states may feel they are being ‘bought’ by America’s money and will resent the US even more, it’s a no win situation.
    But if there was no greater power out there then they would be throwing everything at each other, take Pakistan and India, they hold back because if either one of them pressed the nuclear trigger, the world is likely to side with the one who didn’t fire the first missile.
    The middle east is a hotbed of terrorists and religious fanatics, the world they live in is governed by greed and wealth, ok the west is no different in that respect, only we do it at no cost to human life, we do it by following rules and those who break those rules are punished severely, no such ideals exist in their world, it truly is dog eat dog, but the way they do it is through their religion, they quote the Koran and everybody falls into line because they believe the person they follow will lead them into heaven, same is true of Saddam and of Bin Laden, they have convinced their supporters that they are emissary’s for god and they do his bidding, it is very much like the cults like at Waco but on a much larger scale.
    I think the fact that most westerners don’t see religion as a tool to use as a weapon makes it less likely for us to attack our neighbours, although we have faith, many us wouldn’t take up arms if the Pope or whoever had told us too, we know we have another choice and that’s to say no, but places like Iraq are governed by religion and in their world anyone who slights Islam deserves death.
    About France and Germany, you might be forgiven for thinking that their past now governs their actions, and to some extent it might, but I don’t believe for a second that to be the major reason. Both are in a position where they could have proved a point to the world, but both missed an opportunity. With France came the chance to show their thanks for saving their butts in WW2, as well as learning from it’s past, sitting back thinking nothing will happen to them if they leave well alone was precisely the same dangerous mistake they made with Hitler, so they have learned little.
    With Germany came the chance to show that they are prepared to stand alongside their one time foes, almost sixty years on and they still have yet to show unity amongst in the world, this was their chance, a lot of people who served in WW2 would have forgiven the Germans, but not now. No one would have thought bad of Germany if they had helped in this war, it would’ve proven beyond doubt that they are now truly our allies, yet those of us who have learned of their ways in the past will now that they still have a certain arrogance about them, many in Germany still believe they are the master race, not all and as time goes on the younger generation dispel that myth, but not enough time has gone by to forget it, all it could take is a demoralised country and a leader who instills false belief back into the German people for it all to kick off again, and that’s how the German people felt during the two world wars, they are a proud, but still ultimately a dangerous country.
    Obviously the likelihood of either these scenarios being repeated are slim, but the two countries who owe so much to not just the UK and US, but also the rest of the world, backing off in another time of need begins to cast doubt on whether they can ever be trusted to help in the world’s time of need.
    It’s like most people, you put them under the spotlight long enough and you will see what they are truly made of, for me the US and the UK have shown the world that their acts during WW2 was part of what these countries and their people are truly all about, and we are again showing that this was no fluke, we are not warmongerers, we are people who wish to ensure freedom for all and will fight to make sure that no one is oppressed, whereas Germany and France do exactly as they did in WW2, France capitulates with relative ease and Germany opposes us.
    All in all the French are German people are good neighbours, but when the going get’s tough (and it’s likely to get tougher and they know it), we can’t count on them, because like the anti-war brigade they have no answer to how this situation can be resolved, so at the end of the day they are doing what serves their interests and not the interests of the world as a whole.
    ADM

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 76 total)